Upcoming Campaign Changes

Infraction

DCGoth_OTG wrote: »

@TheGrandAlliance You are correct. I play on the US and I will grant you that I have heard that the EU Servers are in much better shape than the ghost towns that exist in the NA realm. (Our guild plays to a now empty DawnBreaker NA.)

Since I agree that there is a disparity between regions, maybe ZOS needs to evaluate each group, NA and EU, separately. This would make sense, as there does seem to be vast differences between the two.

I have seen posts that the EU servers have a much healthier PvP climate than the NA servers; however, that leads to a large number of people on either side of the Atlantic with different goals. The main problem I see in this is that ZOS like to keep their servers as mirror images. Granting the difference in player base, this may not be a healthy approach to keeping players happy across both realms. I can definitely see valid points on each side of the dilemma.

I do wish you well on the EU side. I think te only thing that we can do now is offer our opinions and see where ZOS decides to take this.

Cheers.

If you play Dawnbreaker on NA side you are fooling yourself if you think that server was populated. From day one it was locked for AD and the other two realms were at low population.

Yasha

Infraction wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

When campaigns end, the scores and leaderboards reset, but the ownership status of keeps/resources/scrolls/emperorship does not reset. There is a small downtime where no scoring can occur.

Im not sure why people are for changing the duration of a campaign with this being said.

Because it gives a sense of satisfaction that you contributed to a campaign. Over the space of 5 days (or less) each battle becomes much more meaningful, there is a greater sense of urgency and your actions have a more tangible effect.

Pvp has basically died before even one campaign has finished. The current campaigns mean nothing to me, and as you can see from the implosion of the population, it meant nothing to the vast majority of people who were playing.

When could I feel, yes this battle is going to turn the course of the campaign? Currently never, in the end boredom was the greatest force as everyone left.

DCGoth_OTG

Infraction wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

When campaigns end, the scores and leaderboards reset, but the ownership status of keeps/resources/scrolls/emperorship does not reset. There is a small downtime where no scoring can occur.

Im not sure why people are for changing the duration of a campaign with this being said.

I believe that the desire stems from the reset of points / leaderboards. If they are too short, you end up with Emperor farming. If they are too long, there is a feeling that people that do not come n at the beginning of a campaign will never catch up to the leaders. A three month campaign results in only four resets per year.

I think that the thirty days is a good compromise between the two extremes.

DCGoth_OTG

Infraction wrote: »

DCGoth_OTG wrote: »

@TheGrandAlliance You are correct. I play on the US and I will grant you that I have heard that the EU Servers are in much better shape than the ghost towns that exist in the NA realm. (Our guild plays to a now empty DawnBreaker NA.)

Since I agree that there is a disparity between regions, maybe ZOS needs to evaluate each group, NA and EU, separately. This would make sense, as there does seem to be vast differences between the two.

I have seen posts that the EU servers have a much healthier PvP climate than the NA servers; however, that leads to a large number of people on either side of the Atlantic with different goals. The main problem I see in this is that ZOS like to keep their servers as mirror images. Granting the difference in player base, this may not be a healthy approach to keeping players happy across both realms. I can definitely see valid points on each side of the dilemma.

I do wish you well on the EU side. I think te only thing that we can do now is offer our opinions and see where ZOS decides to take this.

Cheers.

If you play Dawnbreaker on NA side you are fooling yourself if you think that server was populated. From day one it was locked for AD and the other two realms were at low population.

Part of why it was locked for AD at the beginning was that my guild, along with The Noore and PRX formed a loose alliance for AD. This caused three very large guilds to have a high number of AD players. The Noore and PRX moved on to other campaigns. My guild still has over 500 people who have their home campaign set to Dawnbreaker.

I never said it was balanced. I simply said it has been empty since shortly after the beginning. I'm not sure where The Noore and PRX are currently. They could even be in Craglorn for all I know. My guild has been fragmented across all campaigns, with the majority of people guesting on SkullCrusher.

Additionally, we chose AD as a guild alliance, so most of the members rolled AD characters; however, with almost 750 members at the start, we also had people who went EP and DC. Our EP home campaign was set to Auriel's Bow and DC was set to WabbaJack. (These were all initial settings, as everyone is aware that a number of players now guest elsewhere.)

The one thing which I comment on with the proposed changes is that a revamping of the campaigns may help get rid of the splintering of players tha has happened in a number of guilds.

(**My insights are also limited in scope to the NA servers, as I acknowledge that the EU servers have a completely different dynamic among the players.)

Kiljaz

Because it's not all about the reward, it's about the war. It's a lot easier to stay on top for a week than it is for a month. That's my opinion anyhow.

galiumb16_ESO

I like the plan. I think moving to five campaigns needs to happen immediately.

I like the server types in general and their breakdown, but I really dislike the 5/7 day campaign.

Short campaigns become dominated by large guilds and their alliances. They come into a campaign fully organized, if they are not facing another equally organized opponent, then it will quickly become a steam roll point wise and there is not enough time for those other factions to organize and push back, or really an incentive to do so, in 5 days.

I also think it is impossible to generate a sense of ownership over a campaign that only lasts five days.

Overall for the change, think the campaign length needs to be extended.

galiumb16_ESO

double post

Turelus

I would love for there to still be a 90 day option for campaigns, it makes it feel much more like an ongoing war than just a monthly skirmish.

galiumb16_ESO

ByrenV wrote: »

I think there are too few campaigns in the proposed changes. My guild/friends joined the campaign we joined specifically because it was low population. With there being so few options, there will no longer be a low population option. Maybe a campaign with a lower population cap as an option? Another low pop cap campaign could be added if the first one reaches cap. Obviously, you'd have to indicate it is a low pop campaign so people that want large pop don't pick incorrectly.

I do not think this is valid. There is always going to be a server that is not hitting the caps anyways, because most players will insist on campaign stacking so they can then spend all their time complaining about the lag their stacking creates. When they do that, you will have at least one campaign that is not hitting the caps.

I think the number of campaigns is a great starting point, much easier to add campaigns if needed than reduce them.

Reuz

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO wrote: »

Just been thinking about this a bit more. I really think this will cause even more zergs as it's the zergs that get all the points to become emperor and it would be the best way to win the campaign. The game is already becoming a huge Zerg feast which is such a pity.

As much as it would cause some problems I think one solution to Zerging would be player collision detect in Cyrodill (just Cyrodill, it's a separate system anyway).

That's one problem with siege warfare of this sort, if you can't actually block passage it is possible to simply blow past a defense line. And yes, Zerg numbers matter, but think of it this way. The Spartans couldn't have done a damn thing if the Persian's could just ignore their physical presence.

Tyrra

These changes would be awesome. The focus of my guild is inclusion of members of varying character levels and skill, and the current mechanics are alienating those players. The end result has been a steady departure of guild members from our AvA groups, and from the game in general. These changes would go a long way towards reversing that downwards spiral.

Dleatherus

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

huge kudos on recognizing that the campaigns needed a revamp, and the proposed campaign updates/changes

i would like to see Chillrend (which as it stands is an exact duplicate of Haderus) have a pop lock when it fills 2 bars to accommodate those that love Cyrodiil but with a slightly less hectic and zergy feel

not only will it give more variation for the player to choose from, it could give you valuable information about whether some players prefer a populated and competitive and balanced campaign that has a lower total pop

D.

shirt10

Sharee wrote: »

Personally i'd prefer just two campaigns - one for vets, one for non-vets. Cyrodiil is big enough

I just want to make sure there is a voice against this.
Most guilds and groups of close friends have people split between Vet and pre-Vet. Do not add yet another barrier to grouping up in this game. There are already far too many horrendously implemented 'features' in the game which keep you from grouping together.

Kiljaz

Reuz wrote: »

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO wrote: »

Just been thinking about this a bit more. I really think this will cause even more zergs as it's the zergs that get all the points to become emperor and it would be the best way to win the campaign. The game is already becoming a huge Zerg feast which is such a pity.

As much as it would cause some problems I think one solution to Zerging would be player collision detect in Cyrodill (just Cyrodill, it's a separate system anyway).

That's one problem with siege warfare of this sort, if you can't actually block passage it is possible to simply blow past a defense line. And yes, Zerg numbers matter, but think of it this way. The Spartans couldn't have done a damn thing if the Persian's could just ignore their physical presence.

Unit collision would be amazing for keep defense... stack a wall of tanks in the breach with healers behind and rangers on the walls... I would absolutely love to see scaling ladders added also.

bruceb14_ESO5

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Here are the Campaign types and durations we’re thinking about adding:

• Bow of Shadows: Veteran Rank only Campaign (five-day campaign)
• Blackwater Blade: Non-Veteran only Campaign (five-day campaign)
• Haderus: seven-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.
• Chillrend: seven-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.
• Thornblade: 30-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.

To go along with these new Campaigns, we’d like to adjust guest passes to have a 72-hour lockout, and to make changing your home Campaign cost 100,000 AP (also with a 72-hour lockout).

Let us know what you think of these changes!

Shorter duration than 90 Days = Great Very Short Term 5 Days = Bad
The 90 is long but we get to know the people in our campaign and the leaderboard balances with time so that the average person has a shot at doing well. 30-45 Days would seem more reasonable. 5 is like zerg mentality = Poor

Non-Vet Area = Great

Mixed Campaign = Awesome

Guest Passes 72 hours = Why?
Right now you can travel to every campaign including Celarus on the same day. Just port to a friend in whatever campaign you want to go to.
I like that you can move to the campaigns your friends are in. With 5 guilds available to us all and guilds in different campaigns it would be hard being locked to 72 hours.

Less Campaigns = Good
9 to 5 may be drastic and limit choice and more importantly limit player growth. When a server seems more like PVE it does allow for those who don't live for PVP to start enjoying it gradually and learn. Highly competitive servers cut out that entry.

Personal experience = Great
In Beta I wouldn't step foot in Cyrodiil. I hate PVP. I suck at PVP. PVP is frustrating and demeaning for those not great at it.
Now I love it. I have a chance to rise on the leaderboards. I have a chance to get better with my skills. I even have a chance one on one with someone my level or a step above. I've made friends!!!

Suggestion, add cross faction non scored dueling areas.

frwinters_ESO

@ZOS_brianwheeler - Still need to know when you plan for this to happen.

priecher

I honestly don't think it is enough. I think you are failing to address the real issues. That is the emperorship, People and guilds pass it to friends and members for the buffs. Is what you really intended was to have 100000 emperors. Did you intend to allow them to port to all the campaigns and maintain the buffs. There is nothing like running into a group of emperors and former emperors in AvA. AvA needs a major overhaul from the ground up. I personally feel the system you put in is broken and too exploitable. People exploited AvA to get multiple VR1 toons in under 24 hours of release. People will continue to exploit the travel to player bugs to avoid those AP costs and lockouts. They will continue to pass emperorship around to friends.

I personally feel the Emperor should be an NPC. No more player emperors, it was a great idea that was horribly executed. The highest ranked people, say top 10 should be awarded a warlord buff and everyone should be granted a bonus in the campaign. Heck if it is your home campaign, the buff can carry over to PvE too. Just the regular buff not the warlord buff. That would give them more incentive to defend their keeps and participate in AvA. If your faction loses the emperorship, all titles, buffs, ranks, etc go away. No skill lines, no major buffs after your 15 seconds of fame. I think that would be where you should start. From there you can fix the porting around to players in non home/guest campaigns. Matter of fact, you should only be allowed in your home campaign. If it is unavailable or full, you can go to your guest campaign. If it is full it should allow you to select a new guest campaign OR it should randomly assign you to a campaign OR allow you to enter a queue and wait for access.

priecher

Hlaren_shortsheath wrote: »

right now you can see the obvious lagg and serious problems when campaigns have alot of people in them.
it would be best of there was a cap of 100 people per campaign or maybe 150 people, instead of the current 200 people.
it just laggs out too much with alot of people.

The limit is like 2000 not 200 per campaign.

Joy_Division

Why interrupt the current campaigns? I play in the Wabbajack and it's pretty close between DC and EP. I thought from the beginning 90 days was way too long. Default campaigns should be 30.

In regard to your proposals.

I really like the non-vet campaign. Someone mentioned the NPCs would need to be adjusted and they are correct I feel. I also think you'd need more than 1.

I don't like the idea of a Vet campaign. I'd be worried all the best players or many vets will go there and make the other campaigns lacking. Sounds elitist.

All the campaigns need to be shorter. 30 days seems ideal (Thornblade). The 7 days (Chillrend, Haderus) might be an interesting experiment.

frwinters_ESO

priecher wrote: »

I honestly don't think it is enough. I think you are failing to address the real issues. That is the emperorship, People and guilds pass it to friends and members for the buffs. Is what you really intended was to have 100000 emperors. Did you intend to allow them to port to all the campaigns and maintain the buffs. There is nothing like running into a group of emperors and former emperors in AvA. AvA needs a major overhaul from the ground up. I personally feel the system you put in is broken and too exploitable. People exploited AvA to get multiple VR1 toons in under 24 hours of release. People will continue to exploit the travel to player bugs to avoid those AP costs and lockouts. They will continue to pass emperorship around to friends.

I personally feel the Emperor should be an NPC. No more player emperors, it was a great idea that was horribly executed. The highest ranked people, say top 10 should be awarded a warlord buff and everyone should be granted a bonus in the campaign. Heck if it is your home campaign, the buff can carry over to PvE too. Just the regular buff not the warlord buff. That would give them more incentive to defend their keeps and participate in AvA. If your faction loses the emperorship, all titles, buffs, ranks, etc go away. No skill lines, no major buffs after your 15 seconds of fame. I think that would be where you should start. From there you can fix the porting around to players in non home/guest campaigns. Matter of fact, you should only be allowed in your home campaign. If it is unavailable or full, you can go to your guest campaign. If it is full it should allow you to select a new guest campaign OR it should randomly assign you to a campaign OR allow you to enter a queue and wait for access.

I honestly think server populations are more important then the Emperorship at this time. Is there issues with the Emperor, yes I agree, but that's getting off topic from this particular thread.

Talins

What is going to be done about "alts"? While I do have a "main" I also have 6 other characters over 10 that I like to head to Cyrodiil with. Am I simply going to be unable to PVP with my other alts?

DCGoth_OTG

Talins wrote: »

What is going to be done about "alts"? While I do have a "main" I also have 6 other characters over 10 that I like to head to Cyrodiil with. Am I simply going to be unable to PVP with my other alts?

It would be my guess that the current lockout mechanism would have to go away if this were to be put into practice as it stands.

That may not be such as bad idea though, as the lockout system has had problems in the past. Hopefully the fact that there are less camapigns would help keep collusion down, as the population would be higher and more difficult to collude with others. Plus, you can only be in with one player at a time on an account anyway. (As far as I am aware.)

Lionxoft

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Sadly Scourge players will not be rewarded retroactively.

Way to own up to your team's ridiculous mistake. The foolishness of your organization ceases to amaze me. Congratulations on further tarnishing the Elder Scrolls brand.

Why did it take you half a month to even make an official communication? Are we going to be forced to expect more mistakes of this magnitude due to your supreme negligence?

Vampiresbane

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌
I can't say I'm overly pleased you're closing down servers..*cough* I mean campaigns. While it's unknown whether or not it'll be beneficial in the long term, in the short term, it hurts your newly sprouted communities.

Something that you direly need to cultivate, not damage. How you say?

*Any friendships may be separated by campaigns (good ex, players above and below lvl 50) *Any fun rivalries may end *Any burgeoning alliances may never be finalized

For those of us that are working very hard to nuture the communities within each campaign, we now have to scramble to set up any alliances we didn't have previously, scramble to figure out where friends and rivals are going, and scramble to figure out what campaign will be best for ourselves, our guilds, and our alliances. Not to mention change/update any marketing materials we had made for our personal campaign.

It's a lot of work that didn't need to happen. As we say in the manufacturing/Lean world, there's no "value added" by this move to me.

Some players get more frequent rewards when a campaign ends? Big Whoop. Players get a better chance to become emperor because the leader board is wiped? Um, isn't emperor supposed to be really hard to get? Increasing the chance for players to become emperor just means more emperors. Shocking logic jump I know. Here's another news flash: we don't need more emperors. Many campaigns already have too many "former emperors"; hear me now, at some point, in the notso distant future, the faction that has the most "former emperors" on their side will more easily dominate their campaign. Or...or!..as more and more players become emperor, more and more will quit because they have "beat" the game. One last news flash, less players playing = less money for Zenimax and Betheseda.

STOP CONSTANTLY MAKING LARGE CHANGES^ TO YOUR GAME

Let the dust settle, don't add any more VR ranks (and I know you're thinking about it, rumors abound about VR12 being increased to VR14/VR15), don't drastically change Cyrodiil anymore. If you're going to alter our campaigns now, don't you dare do it for another 1.5 years minimum. Let us play the DAMN game.

Instead why don't you fix the following:

*Constant disconnects while in Cyrodiil or other zones (such a headache while running a PvP raid group to constantly have to "clean" my group of offline players) *Constant crashes because of some wierd group bug *Positions of scrolls within keeps need altering (there's several scroll podiums that have ZERO npc guard protection, allowing an enemy to break down the inner postern and waltz in, have a picnic, pick up the scroll, and meander their way out-Fort Warden is a good example). *Fix the big lag surges (it can't be a coincidence a raid group of 15 have 15 players from all over the european world all have a large lag spike at the same time for anywhere from 1 second to 3 full seconds) *Siege weapons still don't stack *Focus on any other bugs

^By Changes I mean, mechanic alterations, not bug fixes or class balancing. As you can see, I'd rather you focus exclusively on bug fixes (I'm ambivalent towards class balancing since all the factions have access to the same classes).

Docmandu

Ultra short duration campaigns?! Meh don't like that at all.. doesn't really help with identifying with your campaign and developing realm pride.

Samadhi

shirt10 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Personally i'd prefer just two campaigns - one for vets, one for non-vets. Cyrodiil is big enough

I just want to make sure there is a voice against this.
Most guilds and groups of close friends have people split between Vet and pre-Vet. Do not add yet another barrier to grouping up in this game. There are already far too many horrendously implemented 'features' in the game which keep you from grouping together.

At least 3 of the campaigns will be mix between Veteran and Non-Veteran.
By contrast, there is only 1 of each of the exclusive campaigns.

I think this makes the option available without being intrusive.

Isibis

DCGoth_OTG wrote: »

Talins wrote: »

What is going to be done about "alts"? While I do have a "main" I also have 6 other characters over 10 that I like to head to Cyrodiil with. Am I simply going to be unable to PVP with my other alts?

It would be my guess that the current lockout mechanism would have to go away if this were to be put into practice as it stands.

That may not be such as bad idea though, as the lockout system has had problems in the past. Hopefully the fact that there are less camapigns would help keep collusion down, as the population would be higher and more difficult to collude with others. Plus, you can only be in with one player at a time on an account anyway. (As far as I am aware.)

The current lock out mechanism would also need to be WORKING in the first place. As it is, it does the opposite of what its supposed to and locks alts into your main's home campaign. I have actually seen someone get emperorship on two factions in the same campaign. Emperor passing taken to an extreme.

On an unrelated note, the Non Vet campaign may not turn out to be the training wheel campaign that new players expect. There will be some hardcore players that get to 50 gear up and concentrate on killing noobies. I'm not saying Non Vet is a bad idea, but something to watch for.

Samadhi

Isibis wrote: »

...
On an unrelated note, the Non Vet campaign may not turn out to be the training wheel campaign that new players expect. There will be some hardcore players that get to 50 gear up and concentrate on killing noobies. I'm not saying Non Vet is a bad idea, but something to watch for.

Without EXP loss, a level 49 geared character on the PvP map would level up from killing players then be kicked out of the campaign.

Kalanar Highwatch

One other thing I think we need to understand is whether or not the campaign change fee will apply at the end of a campaign or just in the middle of it. When I changed my home campaign a while back, I had the option of paying roughly 15,000 AP or waiting until the end of the campaign and having it switch me at no cost. With the planned move to very short duration campaigns, I don't think you can allow this free transfer at the end if you want the 100,000AP fee to be an effective disincentive. Who would pay that if they could just wait until the 5-7 day campaign is finished?

You also need to consider inflation. Right now 100,000AP is still a lot to most of us but as time goes on and people amass more and more AP that fee is going to be less and less of a barrier. I spend a few nights a week in Cyrodiil, buy lots of siege and repair everything I can and I am around 100,000AP and that number continues to go up each night I play even if I am replacing siege equipment and repairing.

shirt10

Samadhi wrote: »

shirt10 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Personally i'd prefer just two campaigns - one for vets, one for non-vets. Cyrodiil is big enough

I just want to make sure there is a voice against this.
Most guilds and groups of close friends have people split between Vet and pre-Vet. Do not add yet another barrier to grouping up in this game. There are already far too many horrendously implemented 'features' in the game which keep you from grouping together.

At least 3 of the campaigns will be mix between Veteran and Non-Veteran.
By contrast, there is only 1 of each of the exclusive campaigns.

I think this makes the option available without being intrusive.

Absolutely, the initial post here does detail that.

My post was born from quite a few comments earlier in the thread which were asking purely for Vet & non-Vet campaigns.
I just wanted to make sure that the counter argument was out there, just in case Zenimax changed tack based on the louder side of the conversation.